This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tweety21 is back editing. After she made her presence known, an admin un-deleted my sockproblems page (along with other things that, to my understanding, had been deleted, contingent upon her not coming back). I didn't ask to have the page returned, but since it was there, I went ahead and updated it with the new edits she had made. Now she is claiming that she was only banned for two months. Can you please let me know if this is true? I'm still done here once I wrap up my unfinished project (which is completely unrelated to Tweety21), but I don't want to piss off the Foundation if she cut some kind of deal. Thanks, Precious Roy ( talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Cold fusion: first (disambig) sentence: "dveelopment" -> "development" [sorry couldnt't put this on appropriate article's talk page as the talk page itself is semiprotected.] Thanks in advance. 131.111.8.99 ( talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Guy,
Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. |
...but calling another editor "WR's pet admin" is never a helpful strategy for dispute resolution. You've been here long enough to know that.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about the wording change. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must
protect, protect
Wiki
fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings
free
But
fiends are about
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Guy, thanks so much for your support (from our senior spam-fighter no less!)
--
A. B.
(talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a line - we tend not to box-up discussions at the WQA in archive templates. I don't think anyone in the future will revert you, but it's just not common practice, so I thought I'd let you know. Regards. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A link to what you were talking about would have been nice. Talk page warnings are obviously inappropriate when applied to productive contributors as part of ongoing disputes (I've seen it used to rile other editors so many times). On the other hand, I'm not going to spend my time working out if the user who just blanked a section of WP:WQA with an inadequate summary is a pure vandal, or a disgruntled administrator.
Being an administrator might give you extra tools and powers, but does not guarantee you special treatment. If you want to be treated like an editor in good standing, try behaving like one. -- Mark Chovain 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You are forum shopping your content disputes in a quite unacceptable manner. It is time to stop it, please. To look at your recent actions one would conclude that every single editor in that dispute, with the sole exception of you, is abusive in some way. I find that implausible. Guy ( Help!) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn ( talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've written a response to your essay. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no justifiable reason for the AccuCMS page to have been deleted, when it clearly meets the test for notability, including references to the material contained in the Wikipedia article in NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It is completely arbitrary that that article is being declared as "Spam", while it actually covers a notable topic, and at the same time a SLEW of other articles in the content management system list that are ... recitations of product specifications or the like ... are secure. Explain how the AccuCMS article is not notable, and how one of the other entries in the content management system list that has less information, no references, etc.... is. 67.165.106.153 ( talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So, how is this text which follows below blatant advertising, when it includes material references to major publications like NY Times and Wall Street Journal?
I noticed you restored an image I had removed from Wikipedia:No legal threats. Maybe it's just me, but I find gratuitous (esp. humorous) images in policy pages awkward and inappropriate. Here's another example. At any rate, I won't remove those images if others think they serve a good purpose, I just don't see that positive purpose or how they add anything useful to those pages. But that's not the reason why I removed that image. If the images were merely decorative and didn't harm the appearance of the page, I wouldn't mind either way. But actually, I think that since people are most commonly being pointed to those pages in case of violations/warnings, those images are really inappropriate and detrimental to the appearance and purpose of the pages in that they create a somewhat "childish" atmosphere. Policies are not fun and games, certainly not for those looking them up for a specific purpose. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:23, December 13, 2007
Hi there. I see you deleted this article on November 15, any chance I can get a copy of what was there in my userspace? I'm looking at Self-locking device now and wondering whether it was relevant/useful. --You can reply here -- maelgwn - talk 06:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Twinkle didn't finish this AfD for you, so I did. Hope you don't mind. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see the investigation that's been done here and provide any additional information you can. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. :) An editor on this article has requested that the protection be lifted from Race and intelligence. Since you last changed the protection level, I'm checking to see if you're in touch with the disputants or have any objection to its being lifted before it expires in February. Cheers. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's Ekajati's on her hosting machine. DYK that the same hosting machine dug up by CU was blocked by Dmc ten months ago...I presume your comment about Mattisse is a joke. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I found the comments you made here to be highly inflammatory, lacking in any sort of civility or assumption of good faith, and completely untrue. I am sorry that you have this impression of me, but if you read my response to your comment, I hope you understand that this impression is completely false. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, Thanks for the help at trying to control the maelstrom at Race and intelligence. I tried to get some focus on a cooperative edit in sandbox-mode during the protection period but with limited success. A battle emerged over a new title for the article and then .... Without controls not acceptable at WP this will just be a festering sore in perpetuity. Please keep up your enthusiasm for the project! Happy holidays to you and your family. Cheers! Kevin. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy is a real thing, with much significance to the field of rehabilitation science. You deleted the page which I was building and recruiting the help of others to build. I wonder as to your timing, b/c previous to my edits today, I had to remove links to personal web sites on the page. Regardless, this is a very real sub-specialty supported by numerous peer-reviewed publications, including funding by the NIH. I see no reason for you to have assumed it is only a page to serve a professional organization. If the organization should not have been on the page, fine, but you were a bit over-zealous. By the way, I am a professor at a Medical University...hired to teach Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy ONLY! How's that for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekrdpt ( talk • contribs)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of LBU. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ra2007 ( talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I kindly thank you for relocating my autobiography to my user page if that is where it is intended to be. I'm still disappointed with the deletion of the OMPT page. I do not understand how to participate in a deletion review on that topic.-- Ekrdpt ( talk) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting. Unfortunately, the anon just logged in. — An gr If you've written a quality article... 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ra2007/JCSM&action=history
Should we just delete it already? David D. (Talk) 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason not to delete that and protect the title if need be? Came across it on short page patrol and was going to delete it except that I saw that another admin- you - chose not to. Please let me know. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if you were already aware of this but I couldn't see any evidence that you were. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as "spam". -- John ( talk) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know why legistorm.com is considered spam. For the link which was on Anna Eshoo, it easily meets WP:EL as comprehensive information which would not be in the article if it was featured. MilesAgain ( talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are you deleting those links as spam? Sure, they're simply MIDIs, but I thought they were useful. Especially in early music articles, since much of that music is rarely recorded. Jashiin ( talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as an involved admin, might want some input in. -- Haemo ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Illegitimi non carborundum. Corvus cornix talk 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
About the Phantom Organist links? Graham 87 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"most genuinely valuable contributors". You might want to go back to AN/I and subtantiate that. Ceoil ( talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you include more than winter cycling tips? Specifically, you should include information on training or general purpose tips, since the ones that you provide can be generalized for all cyclists. Some that I go by --
If I can think of anymore, I'll add some if that's okay. What do you cycle with? Have a great Christmas season! Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I know we have our differences, but it's never personal with me, and I genuinely hope you have a relaxing and refreshing holiday season. Best regards,
Mr Which
??? 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please unprotect WP:SPOILER? You said "Protected Wikipedia:Spoiler: Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before, unfortunately." When you said "Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before", were you referring to the reason the page got protected on December 8, 2007 at 22:07 by Penwhale? The protection policy says "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." I believe you are involved as a party to the dispute, having deleted the {{ spoiler}} template which led to WP:SPOILER being rewritten without prior discussion on the talk page. I see no reason why WP:SPOILER should be protected for 4 weeks. Could you please reconsider your edit? Thank you. -- Pixelface ( talk) 10:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you nominated Moros Eros for deletion. Just as a general observation, it says quite clearly on WP:DEL that "If the article can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
If you think an article doesn't come up to scratch, it's only fair to inform the writer of your opinions and give them a chance to fix the problems before you nominate the article for deletion.
Sardaka ( talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to an ADSL outage I am offline until 28 Dec at the earliest, occasional connection via 3G or BlackBerry. Please keep comments very brief due to low bandwidth on these connections. My mail server is also affected, email will not be delivered. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This gentleman, and I use that term lightly, has gone crazy on several articles and valued contributors. I think he's pissed about a recent block or something. Can someone deal with him? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Related WQA: WP:WQA#User:Filll (II) and WP:WQA#User:Orangemarlin Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is yet again an assumption of bad faith. We are done here. Guido den Broeder ( talk) 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
SPD V ( talk · contribs) - Heads up. - Jéské ( Blah v^_^v) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Need to have the Protected Redirect for Gurg either unprotected, or change the redirect to Magical_creatures_(Harry_Potter)#Giants. It currently redirects to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, but there is no description there of Gurg. See the OOtP talk page and Talk:Gurg for info. Thanks. -- T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. -- BJBot ( talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
As the sysop who protected the page with an edit summary of "Changed protection level for "User talk:Callmebc": Incessant trolling, no realistic chance of an unblock. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]" but there now seems at least a remote possibility of an unblock, would you be kind enough to unprotect this user talk page, please?
A rationale is to be found here. Alice ✉ 00:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The community would really welcome your input here, Guy, festivities permitting. Alice ✉ 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you review this complaint by me? I know you're having internet connection issues, and this is Christmas and all (I'm Jewish, this is a day like any other, except I can go to the movie theatres in relative peace), but Ferrylodge is pushing it. I think you're technically uninvolved. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You indefinitely protected Wikipedia:Reliable sources a month ago. You wrote at the time, "I'm happy to unprotect as and when a consensus is achieved here as to what (if anything) should change." Another admin said at the time that he did not see the need for protection. There was a lot of discussion following but no clear consensus. The page has now forked into Wikipedia:Evaluating sources which contains much of the information which was deleted from WP:RS, and is so pertinent that it should be linked from it at least.
The instructions at WP:RPP say to ask the protecting admin for unprotection before asking there, so I am. I'd like to add links to various parts of WP:EVALUATE in several sections of WP:RS, please. MilesAgain ( talk) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of free audio software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free audio software. Thank you. -- BJBot ( talk) 10:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
your name is JzG, but how are you "Guy"? how did you do it, I want to change my name (and color!).-- Niyant ( talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your Randell Mills nomination. Maybe we should bundly Hydrino theory in with it. Whaddya think? ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I suppose you are aware that the above article is protected until early Jan 08? That you might consider it protected in the wrong version is no reason to revert it from that version. I would ask you to revert your edit, since the protection was levied to stop the editwar that was ongoing, and to contribute to the discussion at the talkpage. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going through CAT:PER and saw a discussion about un-blacklisting it; you were apparently the one to blacklist it yet you seem not to have weighed in on the talk page; I was thinking maybe you were not notified -- in any case, do you have any comment? The thread is at WP:SBL#legistorm.com. — Random832 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, Product Development and Management Association was overturned at DRV on the 24th (shortly after you had your conversation with User:Davolson. I expect that it may stand for AfD, but it was still transcluded on protected titles, preventing it from being tagged as such (obviously). I've since removed it.
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I generally have a lot of respect for your edits and I've been trying to wrap my mind around these "Hindu nationalist" issues about which I know nothing. To be honest, I can't tell if the same thing is going on there as went on with the Afrocentrism article and Dbachmann, or if in that case he was, in fact, on the right side. I just don't know enough about the issue to say. I think it would helpful to the parties involved in the case if there was some overview of the nature of the content dispute. --I guess I don't really see the relationship between the two issues-- and I feel the the concerns I raised as evidence are not getting enough attention. futurebird ( talk) 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides the 3RR and QW talkpage is there a page where the length of the page protection is discussed? The last 'indefinite' block ended in three days, before consensus was reached. Anthon01 ( talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you can help me here? Anthon01 ( talk) 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. Zenwhat ( talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that your recent deletion of a page in an editor's user space may have been inappropriate, for reasons explained here. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your comments to Ferrylodge (this must be getting old) regarding my deleting of what are POV images. Please see my comments here regarding Ferrylodge's bold-faced attempt to add POV images to the article. I must commend him on his subtlety in attempting this, but it is clear that the images are used to make the fetus more human-like, and therefore, the casual observer might think, "Abortion is evil, because this is obviously a human." If this project is to be NPOV, then let's put images that are used in medical education (of course, let's remember, I'm medically educated). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, I screwed up when I asked 67.135.49.177 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) if he plans to constructively edit any pages after his block expires. He's now editing at User talk:67.135.49.211, making the same complaints as usual. I placed a rangeblock on 67.135.48.0/23, which went over like a lead balloon (see WP:AN/I#Jinxmchue IP rangeblock). There's some discussion there and some questions about why he was blocked in the first place. I removed the rangeblock and the protections I put on the talk pages earlier, but there's an unblock request at User talk:67.135.49.177. I don't know if you want to provide some explanation, but I figured you might want to at least know about it.
It looks like I've caused the interpersonal fiasco that I knew I'd cause right after Christmas. Good going on my part. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In case no one has dealt with it, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_not_getting_the_point_about_sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Imaginative Sex. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AnonMoos ( talk) 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I should probably participate in some way, as I spent considerable amount of time trying to get him to change his behavior, especially in Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine. Thoughts? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Two questions: a) Why does that need a WP shortcut? b) Why doesn't it exist? Will ( talk) 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Owl of Wisdom | ||
I award you this owl because you speak with a great deal of wisdom, and I hope that a lot more people will take a look at your work and what you have to say and reflect on it. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)| |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Tweety21 is back editing. After she made her presence known, an admin un-deleted my sockproblems page (along with other things that, to my understanding, had been deleted, contingent upon her not coming back). I didn't ask to have the page returned, but since it was there, I went ahead and updated it with the new edits she had made. Now she is claiming that she was only banned for two months. Can you please let me know if this is true? I'm still done here once I wrap up my unfinished project (which is completely unrelated to Tweety21), but I don't want to piss off the Foundation if she cut some kind of deal. Thanks, Precious Roy ( talk) 17:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Cold fusion: first (disambig) sentence: "dveelopment" -> "development" [sorry couldnt't put this on appropriate article's talk page as the talk page itself is semiprotected.] Thanks in advance. 131.111.8.99 ( talk) 00:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Guy,
Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. |
...but calling another editor "WR's pet admin" is never a helpful strategy for dispute resolution. You've been here long enough to know that.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about the wording change. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:
Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will
new mop act?
Ooops, .com
blocked
New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well
Main Page
New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault
A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out
DRV
A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye
Qatar is
blocked
Shucks those
range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.
Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must
protect, protect
Wiki
fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings
free
But
fiends are about
Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ...
A. B.
Guy, thanks so much for your support (from our senior spam-fighter no less!)
--
A. B.
(talk) 15:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop you a line - we tend not to box-up discussions at the WQA in archive templates. I don't think anyone in the future will revert you, but it's just not common practice, so I thought I'd let you know. Regards. -- Cheeser1 ( talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
A link to what you were talking about would have been nice. Talk page warnings are obviously inappropriate when applied to productive contributors as part of ongoing disputes (I've seen it used to rile other editors so many times). On the other hand, I'm not going to spend my time working out if the user who just blanked a section of WP:WQA with an inadequate summary is a pure vandal, or a disgruntled administrator.
Being an administrator might give you extra tools and powers, but does not guarantee you special treatment. If you want to be treated like an editor in good standing, try behaving like one. -- Mark Chovain 00:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You are forum shopping your content disputes in a quite unacceptable manner. It is time to stop it, please. To look at your recent actions one would conclude that every single editor in that dispute, with the sole exception of you, is abusive in some way. I find that implausible. Guy ( Help!) 07:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that you are cited in an arbitration request. See here. Pcarbonn ( talk) 19:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I've written a response to your essay. *Dan T.* ( talk) 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no justifiable reason for the AccuCMS page to have been deleted, when it clearly meets the test for notability, including references to the material contained in the Wikipedia article in NY Times and Wall Street Journal. It is completely arbitrary that that article is being declared as "Spam", while it actually covers a notable topic, and at the same time a SLEW of other articles in the content management system list that are ... recitations of product specifications or the like ... are secure. Explain how the AccuCMS article is not notable, and how one of the other entries in the content management system list that has less information, no references, etc.... is. 67.165.106.153 ( talk) 12:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So, how is this text which follows below blatant advertising, when it includes material references to major publications like NY Times and Wall Street Journal?
I noticed you restored an image I had removed from Wikipedia:No legal threats. Maybe it's just me, but I find gratuitous (esp. humorous) images in policy pages awkward and inappropriate. Here's another example. At any rate, I won't remove those images if others think they serve a good purpose, I just don't see that positive purpose or how they add anything useful to those pages. But that's not the reason why I removed that image. If the images were merely decorative and didn't harm the appearance of the page, I wouldn't mind either way. But actually, I think that since people are most commonly being pointed to those pages in case of violations/warnings, those images are really inappropriate and detrimental to the appearance and purpose of the pages in that they create a somewhat "childish" atmosphere. Policies are not fun and games, certainly not for those looking them up for a specific purpose. I dorftrottel I talk I 10:23, December 13, 2007
Hi there. I see you deleted this article on November 15, any chance I can get a copy of what was there in my userspace? I'm looking at Self-locking device now and wondering whether it was relevant/useful. --You can reply here -- maelgwn - talk 06:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Twinkle didn't finish this AfD for you, so I did. Hope you don't mind. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see the investigation that's been done here and provide any additional information you can. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 03:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. :) An editor on this article has requested that the protection be lifted from Race and intelligence. Since you last changed the protection level, I'm checking to see if you're in touch with the disputants or have any objection to its being lifted before it expires in February. Cheers. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's Ekajati's on her hosting machine. DYK that the same hosting machine dug up by CU was blocked by Dmc ten months ago...I presume your comment about Mattisse is a joke. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 00:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I found the comments you made here to be highly inflammatory, lacking in any sort of civility or assumption of good faith, and completely untrue. I am sorry that you have this impression of me, but if you read my response to your comment, I hope you understand that this impression is completely false. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Guy, Thanks for the help at trying to control the maelstrom at Race and intelligence. I tried to get some focus on a cooperative edit in sandbox-mode during the protection period but with limited success. A battle emerged over a new title for the article and then .... Without controls not acceptable at WP this will just be a festering sore in perpetuity. Please keep up your enthusiasm for the project! Happy holidays to you and your family. Cheers! Kevin. -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy is a real thing, with much significance to the field of rehabilitation science. You deleted the page which I was building and recruiting the help of others to build. I wonder as to your timing, b/c previous to my edits today, I had to remove links to personal web sites on the page. Regardless, this is a very real sub-specialty supported by numerous peer-reviewed publications, including funding by the NIH. I see no reason for you to have assumed it is only a page to serve a professional organization. If the organization should not have been on the page, fine, but you were a bit over-zealous. By the way, I am a professor at a Medical University...hired to teach Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapy ONLY! How's that for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekrdpt ( talk • contribs)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of LBU. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ra2007 ( talk) 19:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I kindly thank you for relocating my autobiography to my user page if that is where it is intended to be. I'm still disappointed with the deletion of the OMPT page. I do not understand how to participate in a deletion review on that topic.-- Ekrdpt ( talk) 21:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting. Unfortunately, the anon just logged in. — An gr If you've written a quality article... 20:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Ra2007/JCSM&action=history
Should we just delete it already? David D. (Talk) 23:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason not to delete that and protect the title if need be? Came across it on short page patrol and was going to delete it except that I saw that another admin- you - chose not to. Please let me know. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if you were already aware of this but I couldn't see any evidence that you were. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Abusive identification of Legistorm.com as "spam". -- John ( talk) 22:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know why legistorm.com is considered spam. For the link which was on Anna Eshoo, it easily meets WP:EL as comprehensive information which would not be in the article if it was featured. MilesAgain ( talk) 23:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are you deleting those links as spam? Sure, they're simply MIDIs, but I thought they were useful. Especially in early music articles, since much of that music is rarely recorded. Jashiin ( talk) 18:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as an involved admin, might want some input in. -- Haemo ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Illegitimi non carborundum. Corvus cornix talk 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
About the Phantom Organist links? Graham 87 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
"most genuinely valuable contributors". You might want to go back to AN/I and subtantiate that. Ceoil ( talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you include more than winter cycling tips? Specifically, you should include information on training or general purpose tips, since the ones that you provide can be generalized for all cyclists. Some that I go by --
If I can think of anymore, I'll add some if that's okay. What do you cycle with? Have a great Christmas season! Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I know we have our differences, but it's never personal with me, and I genuinely hope you have a relaxing and refreshing holiday season. Best regards,
Mr Which
??? 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Could you please unprotect WP:SPOILER? You said "Protected Wikipedia:Spoiler: Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before, unfortunately." When you said "Exactly the same stupid edit war that got it protected before", were you referring to the reason the page got protected on December 8, 2007 at 22:07 by Penwhale? The protection policy says "During edit wars, administrators should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." I believe you are involved as a party to the dispute, having deleted the {{ spoiler}} template which led to WP:SPOILER being rewritten without prior discussion on the talk page. I see no reason why WP:SPOILER should be protected for 4 weeks. Could you please reconsider your edit? Thank you. -- Pixelface ( talk) 10:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you nominated Moros Eros for deletion. Just as a general observation, it says quite clearly on WP:DEL that "If the article can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."
If you think an article doesn't come up to scratch, it's only fair to inform the writer of your opinions and give them a chance to fix the problems before you nominate the article for deletion.
Sardaka ( talk) 10:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Due to an ADSL outage I am offline until 28 Dec at the earliest, occasional connection via 3G or BlackBerry. Please keep comments very brief due to low bandwidth on these connections. My mail server is also affected, email will not be delivered. Thanks. Guy ( Help!) 13:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This gentleman, and I use that term lightly, has gone crazy on several articles and valued contributors. I think he's pissed about a recent block or something. Can someone deal with him? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Related WQA: WP:WQA#User:Filll (II) and WP:WQA#User:Orangemarlin Seicer ( talk) ( contribs) 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is yet again an assumption of bad faith. We are done here. Guido den Broeder ( talk) 23:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
SPD V ( talk · contribs) - Heads up. - Jéské ( Blah v^_^v) 21:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Need to have the Protected Redirect for Gurg either unprotected, or change the redirect to Magical_creatures_(Harry_Potter)#Giants. It currently redirects to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, but there is no description there of Gurg. See the OOtP talk page and Talk:Gurg for info. Thanks. -- T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. -- BJBot ( talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
As the sysop who protected the page with an edit summary of "Changed protection level for "User talk:Callmebc": Incessant trolling, no realistic chance of an unblock. [edit=sysop:move=sysop]" but there now seems at least a remote possibility of an unblock, would you be kind enough to unprotect this user talk page, please?
A rationale is to be found here. Alice ✉ 00:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The community would really welcome your input here, Guy, festivities permitting. Alice ✉ 02:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you review this complaint by me? I know you're having internet connection issues, and this is Christmas and all (I'm Jewish, this is a day like any other, except I can go to the movie theatres in relative peace), but Ferrylodge is pushing it. I think you're technically uninvolved. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You indefinitely protected Wikipedia:Reliable sources a month ago. You wrote at the time, "I'm happy to unprotect as and when a consensus is achieved here as to what (if anything) should change." Another admin said at the time that he did not see the need for protection. There was a lot of discussion following but no clear consensus. The page has now forked into Wikipedia:Evaluating sources which contains much of the information which was deleted from WP:RS, and is so pertinent that it should be linked from it at least.
The instructions at WP:RPP say to ask the protecting admin for unprotection before asking there, so I am. I'd like to add links to various parts of WP:EVALUATE in several sections of WP:RS, please. MilesAgain ( talk) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, List of free audio software, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free audio software. Thank you. -- BJBot ( talk) 10:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
your name is JzG, but how are you "Guy"? how did you do it, I want to change my name (and color!).-- Niyant ( talk) 02:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your Randell Mills nomination. Maybe we should bundly Hydrino theory in with it. Whaddya think? ScienceApologist ( talk) 10:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I suppose you are aware that the above article is protected until early Jan 08? That you might consider it protected in the wrong version is no reason to revert it from that version. I would ask you to revert your edit, since the protection was levied to stop the editwar that was ongoing, and to contribute to the discussion at the talkpage. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going through CAT:PER and saw a discussion about un-blacklisting it; you were apparently the one to blacklist it yet you seem not to have weighed in on the talk page; I was thinking maybe you were not notified -- in any case, do you have any comment? The thread is at WP:SBL#legistorm.com. — Random832 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Just so you know, Product Development and Management Association was overturned at DRV on the 24th (shortly after you had your conversation with User:Davolson. I expect that it may stand for AfD, but it was still transcluded on protected titles, preventing it from being tagged as such (obviously). I've since removed it.
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I generally have a lot of respect for your edits and I've been trying to wrap my mind around these "Hindu nationalist" issues about which I know nothing. To be honest, I can't tell if the same thing is going on there as went on with the Afrocentrism article and Dbachmann, or if in that case he was, in fact, on the right side. I just don't know enough about the issue to say. I think it would helpful to the parties involved in the case if there was some overview of the nature of the content dispute. --I guess I don't really see the relationship between the two issues-- and I feel the the concerns I raised as evidence are not getting enough attention. futurebird ( talk) 21:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Besides the 3RR and QW talkpage is there a page where the length of the page protection is discussed? The last 'indefinite' block ended in three days, before consensus was reached. Anthon01 ( talk) 12:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Any chance you can help me here? Anthon01 ( talk) 13:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. Zenwhat ( talk) 15:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe that your recent deletion of a page in an editor's user space may have been inappropriate, for reasons explained here. Ferrylodge ( talk) 19:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your comments to Ferrylodge (this must be getting old) regarding my deleting of what are POV images. Please see my comments here regarding Ferrylodge's bold-faced attempt to add POV images to the article. I must commend him on his subtlety in attempting this, but it is clear that the images are used to make the fetus more human-like, and therefore, the casual observer might think, "Abortion is evil, because this is obviously a human." If this project is to be NPOV, then let's put images that are used in medical education (of course, let's remember, I'm medically educated). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, I screwed up when I asked 67.135.49.177 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) if he plans to constructively edit any pages after his block expires. He's now editing at User talk:67.135.49.211, making the same complaints as usual. I placed a rangeblock on 67.135.48.0/23, which went over like a lead balloon (see WP:AN/I#Jinxmchue IP rangeblock). There's some discussion there and some questions about why he was blocked in the first place. I removed the rangeblock and the protections I put on the talk pages earlier, but there's an unblock request at User talk:67.135.49.177. I don't know if you want to provide some explanation, but I figured you might want to at least know about it.
It looks like I've caused the interpersonal fiasco that I knew I'd cause right after Christmas. Good going on my part. -- Elkman (Elkspeak) 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
In case no one has dealt with it, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_not_getting_the_point_about_sockpuppetry. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 16:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Imaginative Sex. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. AnonMoos ( talk) 17:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I should probably participate in some way, as I spent considerable amount of time trying to get him to change his behavior, especially in Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine. Thoughts? -- Ronz ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Two questions: a) Why does that need a WP shortcut? b) Why doesn't it exist? Will ( talk) 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The Owl of Wisdom | ||
I award you this owl because you speak with a great deal of wisdom, and I hope that a lot more people will take a look at your work and what you have to say and reflect on it. LonelyBeacon ( talk) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)| |